4 September 2003
blog another day
Well, I just finished watching Die another day. As for Bond movies, it wasn’t too bad. I think I’d rather see the movie of Nightfire on the PS2—but not that badly. Anyway, it seems that there is a checklist for making such movies. Line items I’m sure are included are:
- International intrigue
- Innuendo laden banter
- Impossible technology
- Improbable explosions
- Innumerable expendable henchmen
- “Inescapable” predicaments
- Illogical science
…And so on. I could probably alliterate another couple entries but what would be the point? It’s just a Bond movie, and in such situation all the above are expected, if not necessary. I’m willing and able to overlook all of them—to a point. Let’s take the example of that last one: illogical science. Visible lasers and DNA resequencing I can accept, as their “existence” makes the story much more interesting. However, late in the film they crossed a line that was just too far afield of reality.
Just after James dispatched the villain (oops, I hope I didn’t give that plot twist away) a pair of exotic supercars are dropped from very high altitude. They aren’t forgotten, as they are later revealed to be stuck nose-first in the muck below. It’s a good laugh, but bad physics. Think about it: nevermind the fact that they started falling rear-first, but the engines are in the rear of the car (or near the back, mid-engined some might say). Now unless these boots of these cars were filled with lead and mercury, they’d likely fall on their ends, not front-first.
And why does it matter? In a movie rife with in-jokes and homages it’s just another throwaway joke, albeit an elaborately-plotted one, and it garners the laughs it should. Why does it bother me that they didn’t stick the correct end of the cars into the ground? Did somebody on the set decide that it wouldn’t be as funny the other way? Could it be Freudian in some sick form? Why does it bother me so?